Promising Results in New Parkhomov Experiment

Alexander Parkhomov has continued his replication attempts of Andrea Rossi’s Hot Cat reactor, and reports promising results in a new experiment. If the measurements can be believed, he achieved a COP of 3.2 in an extended run. He is running a new setup that is in the open air rather than his calorimeter. He reportedly made this change in order to get away from the problem of frequently needing to refill the calorimeter with water.

Three things of importance are confirmed in this experiment:

1). The reaction can be restarted after it stops.

2). Extremely high pressures are not needed and the system is in fact under a partial vacuum when the reaction occurs.

3). Parkhomov was able to reproduce his previous results despite using different nickel particles.

Parkhomov needs to improve his calorimetry setup to confirm these findings, but the fact that he has produced similar results using two different measurement methods is encouraging.

Is there any way, Jack, that you could share the exact materials you are using? Here I mean pictures and links to suppliers?

Some might think this is premature. I would disagree. It saves time. Significant amounts of time. And when, and if a breakthrough occurs, replication of your experiments can then happen much quicker.

If we see the picture of a bottle of something you are using, we can verify that we too are using the same thing. When we purchase from the same supplier as you do, it is more likely our experiments can have similiar results.

I do not deny the possibility that production runs of some component cannot introduce unwanted variations. I am lobbying for more sourcing details – the finest degree of details achievable.

The work has been ongoing. I have had some good results, but did not want to report them until I was certain. I have been using LAH instead of alternative hydrogen sources recently. I had a recent experiment that demonstrated the same pattern as Parkhomov’s results. Decreasing power maintained a higher temperature at 1130 to 1200C. Basically, it took ~77W to maintain 1000C, but only 55-60 to maintain 1130C. Also, took ~77W to maintain 1200C (the same as 1000C). The alumina tube melted through where the fuel was in the tube. Anyway, I need to be able to repeat this to be fully convinced. My alumina tube quality is a problem, which I think will reduce the reproducibility.

Jack,
A thought……
there has been some indication of a stainless steel liner ( to perhaps spread the hot spots out and keep the alumina from rupturing ??). Though I’m not sure SS can withstand that kind of heat.

I think you’ll find that the thermal conductivity of 300 series stainless steel is not better than alumina at elevated temperatures. At room temperature 316 has about 78% of the conductivity of high purity alumina.
Dan